My Fair Lady Review

My Fair Lady follows Professor Henry Higgins and his student Eliza Doolittle.  Professor Higgins, a linguist who can distinguish different accents from all across Europe, takes on a bet in which he says he can transform Eliza, a lowly flowergirl, into a lady who speaks, acts, and dresses properly.  Eliza eventually succeeds at becoming a more "genteel" woman, and even attracts the attention and adoration of a young aristocrat.  Eliza's makeover is apparent in the way she talks (how she enunciates her vowels), the way she dresses, and the overall way she handles herself.  However, when she overhears Prof. Higgins taking all the credit for her unbelievable transformation, Eliza leaves him and Prof. Higgins realizes that he misses her.

From a linguist student's point of view, this film is interesting, as it allows us to listen to many different dialects of the English language--from the rough way of speaking of Eliza to the more refined speaking of Higgins and his colleagues.  My favorite part of the movie was in the beginning when Prof. Higgins went around listening to people to talk and telling each one of them exactly where they came from!  He mentioned that he could distinguish where someone is from within 3 or 6 miles!  I also found it interesting how Eliza wanted to change her way of speaking so she could find a better job and make more money.  This shows that her dialect was of the low variety and that she would have to change that if she were to speak in a different, higher domain of life. 

Overall, My Fair Lady was a good musical which successfully incorporated different dialects to teach the differences between high and low varieties. 

Was the Apology Resolution effective??

During 1993, when the US issued the Apology Resolution, it seemed like the right thing to do and that it would be very effective.  It might have been considered late in coming (a century after the fact), but Native Hawaiians and government officials alike seemed optimistic toward this breakthrough.  After all, an apology would definitely not hurt the situation since the Hawaiians still didn't have their land back.  It seemed as if this apology would not only improve the relationship with Hawaii and the rest of the nation, but also result in some type of reparations, whether it be money or land.  

I thought that this apology was approached in the right way.  It was a good idea to make it official with government documents because this was a political problem to begin with.  If the natives wanted their land back, they would have to do so through the government.  

However, 16 years later, the 1993 Apology Resolution has not accomplished much from the Native Hawaiian's viewpoint.  They still have been compensated for the vast amount of land they lost unrightfully in 1893.  In fact, there is an ongoing court case that went from the Hawaii court rooms, to the Supreme Court, and is now back in the state.  There are numerous organizations, including the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kau Inoa, that are working to make things better for the Hawaiians after all these years of injustice.

An "Apology" to the Native Hawaiians

     In 1893, the United States of America overthrew Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii as they annexed their 50th state into the union.  With this overthrow, the US stole the land away from the Native Hawaiians unrightfully and illegally.  In order to make amends for their mistakes, the US, under the presidency of Bill Clinton, issued an "Apology Resolution" one century after the fact.  This document admitted that the US wrongfully took the land away from the Native Hawaiians.  

     However, even with this official public apology, there is much controversy still lingering.  While this "law" was passed through Senate and Congress, nothing has really been done to make things right.  Even until this very day, Hawaiians have only gained back a small fraction of their land.  While there are designated areas devoted to Native Hawaiians, these places are extremely small, run down, and unsanitary.

Click Here to see excerpts of the Apology Resolution of 1993

or

Click Here to find out more about the Native Hawaiian's unrest about the "apology"

Note: Kau Inoa is an effort by Native Hawaiians to strengthen their culture and gain back the rights they previously had taken away.

Can We Save the Planet? Presentation

Last week Tuesday, world-renowned environmentalist Simran Sethi lectured us on the topic: Can We Save the Planet?  While she clearly knows information regarding pollution, thinking "green," and energy conservation, she did not really answer her topic question.  She pushed us in the direction of thinking of our own solutions, and I do not believe it was very effective since many of the students were not environment-related majors and did not have a clear grasp on possible solutions.  Sethi, however, did do a good job of outlining all the problems with the cleanliness and durability of our Earth to make us more aware of this important issue.  I also thought it was interesting how she said that although the media was destructive to the environment, it could shed more light onto this problem and spread awareness. 

As for improvement, I would suggest that she devote more time to possible solutions, rather than summarizing the problem and discussing the entertainment industry.  I also felt she could use more visual aids, other than her videos.  

Still, however, I believe Sethi is very knowledgeable of the environment and has and will do much to save our planet.  

The Abenaki Language

Abenaki is an endangered language originally spoken from Massachusetts to the St. Lawrence River valley (present-day New England and parts of Quebec).  It is split into two varieties: Eastern Abenaki and Western Abenaki.  The Eastern variant, spoken in parts of Maine and Quebec, only has one surviving group on Indian Island.  While the last fluent speaker died in 1993, this dialect is thoroughly documented.  On the other hand, Western Abenaki is used in New Hampshire, Vermont, and parts of Quebec.  There is a large group in Quebec, composed of many elderly, fluent speakers.  

This language, founded in the 16th century, however, has become endangered.  The Abenaki's struggle to preserve their language and culture began when the French and English colonized North America.  Soon after, they were forbidden to use their language--a ruling that remained until the 1950s.  Furthermore, during the Eugenics movement, the Abenakis (as well as other minorities) would risk sterilization or institutionalization for keeping hold of their culture and language.  

These days, the Abenaki speakers and advocates have been working hard to keep the language alive.  Several adult classes are being held and dictionaries have been printed.  There are great efforts taking place because this language is full of cultural history and significance.  

Click Here for Abenaki's Role in Culture and Traditions

or

Click Here for the Future of the Abenaki Language

  

To Save or Not to Save?

With so many endangered languages and only a limited amount of resources, linguists and government agencies must find a way to determine which languages are worth saving and which ones are not worth the money or effort.  Personally, I have several conditions that make a language worth saving.  First of all, there must be a solid, decently large population (maybe 500+ individuals) of fluent speakers.  It is also helpful that many of these people are of the younger generations so that the language doesn't die with the elders.  Another condition is that the fluent speakers have a positive attitude toward the survival of this language and that they are willing to help and cooperate with the linguists.  If there is no desire or enthusiasm among the fluent speakers, then it would be extremely difficult for the government and linguists to help revitalize the language.  Lastly, I believe that the language should already have a written form and include modern/technological vocabulary.  It would be far too difficult and costly to invent a written form.  Also, the language would be essentially useless in today's world if it did not include modern words.  

On the other hand, there are several conditions where saving a language is not worth it.  Similar to what I mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is not worth it to save languages where there are only one or two speakers.  If a language only has a few fluent speakers, then past generations clearly did not care to keep the language going.  If there is this negative attitude and no compliance, then there is no reason to save the language.  

Still, I admire the efforts of linguists around the world who are trying their best to save as many languages as they can.  Here is a video from YOUTUBE describing the Rosetta Project--a project geared at saving languages...

Language, Society, Culture and Critical Thinking

Our Linguistics 115 class may not predominantly focus on critical thinking and uncertainty, but it sure does incorporate these ideas.  Thus far, our teacher has mainly thrown at us hundreds of facts about languages, dialects, and varieties, and how these have evolved.  However, I do think that there is some degree of critical thinking that goes on when our teacher talks about how new languages come into existence and why people have their own, unique ways of talking.  Because languages do not come into being overnight, there is a long process that it must go through in order to be properly established.  Because of the uncertainty that this language may not become as widespread as wanted, government leaders and public figures must thoroughly critically think about the social and political pros and cons of that language.  Furthermore, after learning about these processes and languages, I find myself thinking critically about the languages that we've learned about.  For instance, when learning about the dialect continuum, I thought about how there are so many different dialects, but yet, if you go from one to the other, you can easily learn and understand either one.   This made me think why they even call it different dialects, or even different languages.  I realized that there is not a "right" answer to this dilemma, and policy makers just had to make the best decision they could, while knowing that other people might disagree.